As for me, I'm fine with the gung-ho Lamont supporters, who've pulled off an almost unprecedented upset against a sitting senator who'd come to embody some of the worst tendencies on Washington insiderism under the GOP hegemony. And I'm fine with those who are more exercised about knocking off Santorum, Burns, etc. and taking back one or both houses. What does irk me is that there's a tendency I see in a lot of liberal blogosphere to go from being against Lieberman, to being against anyone who supports Lieberman, to being against anyone who isn't sufficiently against Lieberman, to be against anyone who even raises a question about the emerging orthodoxy about this race.

That sort of infinite regress isn't how majorities are built, certainly not sustainable ones. Certainly not on 100% of the issues. For a party trying to make it back into power -- and even more a broad coalition trying to end a disastrous one-party GOP rule in the country -- there's a great virtue in agreeing to disagree about as many issues as possible, unless clear and unmistakable issues of principle are implicated in the disagreement.

An issue like Iraq is one of those issues. In many cases the disagreements are simply unbridgeable. But the debate over the relative importance of the Connecticut senate race versus other races around the country simply isn't. If people disagree, they should try to persuade each other of their position. And if they can't, they should agree to disagree and move on to doing whatever they think is most effective in returning the Democrats to power in November.

Well, here's the problem with that. When was the last time the GOP had someone run as a Republican who was allowed to take money from the Dems, and assoicate with Democratic fundraisers and politicians? Do you think Karl Rove would tolerate this kind of open disloyalty? Are you kidding?

The Democratic leadership isn't willing to admit Lieberman is a danger to their entire electoral strategy. Some, like Kerry and Edwards are getting it, but too many people want to wish it away. It's not about orthodoxy, but basic party loyalty. You have one of the most senior politicians in the party trashing it and the electoral process in one fell swoop.

Lieberman has walked away from the Democrats, but still ridiculously claims loyalty. There is no other issue and if people are too stupid to realize the role that Lieberman plays for Bush, then they need to be reminded.

The problem isn't diversity, but forgiveness. Josh and his friends were wrong about the war, incredibly wrong, and they want to be forgiven. So they call for "diversity" when what they really want is for people to not toss their warmongering in their faces.

Now, I don't think Josh is evil or some kind of sellout. I just think he's wrong about this. Some of the comments about him here haven't been fair. I think he's done a great deal to challenge Beltway orthodoxy. But I think there's a blind spot there as well.

Lieberman is willing to sell out the Democratic party, his loyal supporters and attack Ned Lamont like his knocked up his daughter and then married someone else, all for personal pique. It is an abuse of his position in the Senate and in the party. A lot of Josh's friends and supporters, look at his links, are in the Lieberman camp or were. And even though he was personally repelled by Lieberman's selfishness, I see a reluctance to attack his supporters for backing the loser of the Democratic primary. It's like a divorce, you hope to get past daddy calling mommy a cocksucking whore, and mommy calling daddy a secret faggot. You just want it to all go away as cleanly and quickly as possible.

The problem with that is that Lieberman made it ugly on election night. He didn't quit gracefully or even wait a day to announce his run. He did it from the stage, setting the nasty fight from day one.

The people raising the questions aren't raising intelligent questions, or even asking if the stakes are as high as people claim. They just want it to go away. It's a nasty fight and they just don't want to deal with it. And there are some things you just have to deal with, no matter how ugly things get.